SC fixes alleged contempt of court against Ranjan for 14 Dec.

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday fixed to be mentioned on 14 December the alleged charge of contempt against Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake.

When the matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Eva Wanasundera and Vijith K. Malalgoda, the counsel for the complainant-petitioners told Court that he wanted the complete recording of the statement made by the respondent Ramanayake to Sirasa TV on 21 August 2017. The Court allowed the application and directed the registrar to ask for the said full recording.

Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran PC, appearing for the respondent, informed Court that he wished to file a written submission that the Court should not entertain the application for summons and it should not be issued on the respondent.

When the matter came up before the Court, Defendant Ramanayake was present in court.

Petitioners Sunil Perera and Ven. Magalkande Sudaththa Thero are seeking contempt of court action against Ramanayake, the Deputy Minister for Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan Heritage, for an alleged insult made at a press conference held on 21 August allegedly damaging the reputation of the Judiciary and lawyers. Rasika Tissanayake with Suraj Walgama appeared for the petitioners.

The petitioners allege the statement amounts to disrepute and an insult to the Judiciary and the lawyers of the country.

They claim the respondent Ramanayake was liable to be punished under Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

Article 105(3) reads: “The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of court itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit.” The petitioners state that the statement was made at a time when the international community and organisations were trying to force the country to establish special courts and tribunals, with the participation of foreign judges, to charge security forces personnel, thereby infringing on the sovereignty of the people.

They contend that his attack and the insult to the Judiciary of the country could lead to the bifurcation of the complex issues faced by the country.

They say that the statement made by the respondent ridicules and insults the members of the legal profession at large, who are the officers of the court, and also amounts to the commission of the offence of contempt of court.